M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE above writ petition coming up for orders, by consent of Counsel for parties, is taken up for final hearing as the question involved here has already been decided in a number of decisions of this Court. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this petition are as follows: The petitioner was an employee of the State Government, in the department of Co-operative Societies. On 2-3-1977 by an order passed by virtue of power conferred under Note-I to Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the government. This was at the time when the Country was in a state of internal emergency. Consequent upon the lifting of the emergency and the report submitted by the shah Commission, the Government as a matter of policy, issued notification inviting all compulsorily retired officials to make representations for re-employment in the state Services. On the representation made by the petitioner, he was re-employed by an order dated 24-1-1978 and was posted as the General Manager, Co-operative Spinning mills, Belgaum. The petitioner has alleged that he reported for duty pursuant to the order dated 24-1-1978, on 4-2-1978, as per Exhibit-E to the petition. However, on 28-2-1978, at the Board meeting of the belgaum Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. , a resolution was passed unanimously, requesting the Registrar of Co-operative Societies karnataka to withdraw the services of the petitioner, for the reasons given in the resolution. ( 3 ) IT is relevant at this stage to point out that the respondent-State has not filed any return. But, on the basis of the information available in the records the learned government Pleader stated that on 14-4- 1978 the Belgaum Co-operative Spinning mills Ltd. informed the Registrar that the petitioner was relieved on 14-4-1978 and requested the Registrar of Co-operative societies to give a posting order to the petitioner. On 27-4-1978 the petitioner applied for 35 days leave on medical grounds. It is averred that he was medically examined on 26-4-1978 and it was found that the petitioner was suffering from Low blood pressure, nueritis, etc. , and was advised complete rest for five weeks. The certificates of the r. M. O. and Surgeon of the Civil Hospital at Belgaum have been annexed to the petition as exhibits in support of the averment. , and was advised complete rest for five weeks. The certificates of the r. M. O. and Surgeon of the Civil Hospital at Belgaum have been annexed to the petition as exhibits in support of the averment. The petitioner received on 30-4- 1978 a notification dated 24-4-1978 by which he was transferred and posted as Secretary, co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. , Raibag. He made a representation to the Hon'ble minister for Co-operation praying for a posting to Bangalore. It is averred that the Government was pleased to accept the representation and the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation is stated to have made an order to post the petitioner as the Secretary to Gouribidanur Co-operative Sugar factory Ltd. Pursuant to the said order, as evidenced by Exht-O, the Government issued a further notification ordering the transfer of the petitioner to the post of the general Manager, Gowribidanur Sakkare karkane Ltd. , with immediate effect. The said order is dated 15-6-1978. The petitioner, on receipt of that order reported himself for duty at Gowribidanur on 19-6- 1978. There are certain averments concerning the apprehension of the petitioner of termination of services which may not be relevant to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. It suffices to state that on 13-12-1978 the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court under Art 226 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution seeking relief inter alia contending that the notification of the Government dated 2-3- 1977 bearing No. RDC 181 SPL 76 compulsorily retiring him was not in accordance with law, it was arbitrary and without proper application of mind. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondent state be restrained from terminating his services to which he had re-entered after re-employment. This Court passed an interim stay as prayed for on 14-12-1978. However, it transpires that on 15-12-1978 a notification was issued by the Government terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect from the post he held at Gowribidanur in the Gowri bidanur Sahakari Sakkare Karkane Ltd. It is also to be noticed that in view of the stay order passed by this Court, the notification dated 15-12-1978 was kept in abeyance by a subsequent notification dated 19-12-1978. The petitioner is aggrieved not only by the original order of compulsory retirement passed by virtue of the power vested in the Government under Note-I to Rule 285 of the Rules but also by the subsequent order of termination dated 15-12-1978. ( 4 ) SRI. K. S. Desai appearing for the petitioner has contended that having regard to the decision of this Honble Court in m. Mohamed Nabi vs. State of Karnataka (1977) 1 Kar. LJ. 365, the petitioner's compulsory retirement now impugned ipso facto requires to be quashed in view of the fact of re-employment of the petitioner which also must be presumed to be in public interest. In the aforementioned decision, after discussing, in detail, the Rules, Rama Jois, J. , has stated as follows:"in view of the order passed by the state Government on 15/18-4-1978 according to which, the petitioner is re-employed till 55 years, it follows that public interest does not suffer by the continuance of the petitioner in service till superannuation. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion, that should follow is, that the order of compulsory retirement was made against the petitioner either without formation of the necessary opinion that the continuance of the petitioner in service is not in public interest or the decision taken was an arbitrary decision. Therefore, the decision of the Government to re-employ the petitioner till he attains the age of retirement is itself, sufficient to hold that the earlier decision of the Government directing the premature retirement of the petitioner was not in public interest and consequently not authorised by note-I to Rule 285 of the Rules. "in similar petitions following the decision rendered by Rama Jois, J. this Court has quashed compulsory retirement orders originally passed when that official has been re-employed in public interest. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is no exception. It shows the original order of retirement indicates by inference lack of proper application of mind and made arbitrarily when viewed with the subsequent order of re-employment. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is no exception. It shows the original order of retirement indicates by inference lack of proper application of mind and made arbitrarily when viewed with the subsequent order of re-employment. ( 5 ) NOW, turning to the termination order passed on 15-12-1978 it is fairly conceded by the learned Government pleader on the basis of the records made available to him, by the Department that the order once again terminating the services of the petitioner was without affording him an opportunity of being heard, but was for a valid reason in as much as the petitioner had violated Rule 185 of the Rules. Assuming for a moment that there has been such violation, still the order suffers from the incurable defect of having been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and therefore contrary to Rules of natural justice. Therefore, the second order of termination cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) FOR the above reaso ns, the original order of retirement made under Note-I to Rule 285 of the Rules, pertaining to the petitioner is hereby quashed by issue of writ of Certiorari as also the order dated 15-12-1978 once again terminating the services of the petitioner after re-employment. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and direction will issue to the respondents. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to the consequential benefits on account of the quashing of the order dated 2-3-1977. It is also made clear that the quashing of the order dated 15-12-1978 does not prevent the State from initiating appropriate proceedings if the petitioner has contravened rules as contended for the State by the learned Government Pleader and to deal with the matter in accordance with law. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to costs. Advocate's fee is Rs. 250. --- *** --- .